Sponsored Links

Sorry I didn’t post my reviews of the new movies out Christmas Day, but I wasn’t feeling well and needed a brief break. This is supposed to be the time of year when Hollywood puts out its best stuff. No such luck. Not even close. It’s just dreck. I can’t recommend any of the new movies that debuted in theaters yesterday, and here’s why:

* “Django Unchained“: This movie is a three-hour-long anti-White racism-fest. Yes, slavery happened in America, and the slaves were Blacks who were enslaved by Whites (and some other Blacks). But there were also some good White people, abolitionists who worked for the freedom of slaves. And, yet, not a single White American in this movie is a good person. All of them, with the exception of a German immigrant dentist/bounty hunter, are evil (and stupid). And you know why director Quentin Tarantino made the one good guy a German, don’t you? Because four score (the movie takes place in 1858) years later, the Germans were the Nazis we fought, the Nazis who enslaved the Jews. You’ve probably heard about Jamie Foxx bragging on “Saturday Night Live” that he gets to kill White people in this movie and gets paid for it. But that’s not news, since he utters the same line in the movie and that line is in many of the trailers promoting it.

And, since this is a Tarantino flick, it goes without saying that the movie is extremely bloody, gory, and violent–perhaps more than the other Tarantino movies. If Tarantino really wanted to do a good western, he wouldn’t have done this. Instead, he wanted to do a tribute to the Obama fans of the world and pile on everyone else, somehow justifying the non-stop affirmative action, minority set-asides, and other race-based favoritism in America. He also wanted to give the hip-hop, single-mother, welfare-addicted, drug-using segment of our society something to feel good about . . . that they are better than the White “crackers,” who “did this” to them. But, in fact, most Whites in America today, don’t come from that stock. For example, my ancestors were busy being raped and tortured in pogroms by anti-Semitic Poles in Europe at the time. They had nothing to do with slavery or what happened then. So, this movie, as a justification for all the Black racism against White people and all the legs up the government gives minorities, just doesn’t work for me. The “Get Whitey” ethos of this movie isn’t what we need more of. We need far less. And, as you may have read, it’s full of the N-word, though I expected that, since it does take place at the time of slavery in the South.

The story: a German immigrant dentist/bounty hunter (Christoph Waltz) travels the country rounding up criminals, dead or alive, for the bounty. In the course of that, he looks for, finds, and frees a Black slave known as Django (Jamie Foxx). Together, they partner up in the bounty hunter business, while they look for Django’s wife, Broomhilda (Kerry Washington), a German-speaking slave who was once owned by a German family. They find and try to buy her freedom from a haughty but not-too-wise plantation owner (Leonardo DiCaprio a/k/a DiCrapio). Along the way, they also meet another plantation owner, who is also haughty but not-too-wise, played by Don Johnson (yup, that Don Johnson of “Miami Vice” fame; Tom Wopat from “The Dukes of Hazzard” also co-stars). They also meet up with many small town residents and cowboys, all of whom are racist. Oh, and did I mention that White people are racist? In case you didn’t get that, there are scenes, such as DiCaprio and his other slave-owning friends and associates holding and watching a private mandingo death match between slaves as entertainment. Yeah, you see what those crackaz did in 1858? So, we deserve our Obamaphone and then some!

I would be lying if I didn’t say that there are some mildly entertaining and funny moments amid the race-baiting. But that doesn’t justify it, and mostly the movie is long, slow, and boring, between brutal, graphic killings, that is. Like I said, the movie is extremely bloody and violent, and extremely racist. And it’s not necessary at this time, unless of course, it’s to provide more justification for the re-election of Barack Obama, the ever growing ranks of American food stamp and welfare recipients, and the disintegration of urban America. You know datz right.

If you do go to see this race-baiting cinematic screed, don’t drink anything beforehand. It’s nearly three hours, and you’ll need a pretty strong bladder (and a lot of patience). I like a good spaghetti Western. This ain’t it.

FOUR MARXES PLUS AN AL SHARPTON PLUS A JESSE JACKSON

Watch the trailer . . .

* “Les Miserables“: Miserable definitely describes my mood sitting through this nearly three-hour exercise in bad singing and an even more atrocious story. For years, I’ve heard every female relative I know and many of my friends rave over the Broadway musical upon which this is based. And, now, that I’ve seen it, I wonder, is that all there is? I have to say the fans of Les Mis vastly overrate utter garbage. What’s to rave about? An abandoned mother (Anne Hatha-neigh, er . . . Hathaway) toils in a factory to pay for her daughter who is being kept by evil, sleazy inn owners (Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter). When she’s fired from the factory, the mother becomes a prostitute and gets sick and dies. Then, the man who fired her, a former prisoner and lawbreaker (Hugh Jackman)–he was imprisoned for 17 years for stealing a piece of bread for his sister to eat–feels bad, so he gets her young daughter and raises her. But he is forever in hiding and escaping from a lawman (Russell Crowe). Oh, and he dies on the daughter’s wedding day. And this horrid tragedy is somehow a “great” musical? Oy.

I found this to be long, slow, and very boring. I couldn’t wait to go to the bathroom, as it’s waaaaay tooooo looooong. Also, while Hathaway has a great singing voice, the same cannot be said for the men, who sound horrible. It sounded like someone was beheading sheep. Not only can’t Russell Crowe sing, it’s almost as painful to hear Hugh Jackman, who supposedly was a great singer on Broadway and in his native Australia. Maybe something happened to his vocal cords since he began playing Wolverine in the X-Men movies?

I’m also shocked at all the parents who would take their kids to see such tragic, lascivious stuff with scenes of prostitutes and sex for money and so on. But maybe I shouldn’t be, since a porn star (Kim Kardashian) is the heroine for kids these days. Sad.

Don’t believe the hype over this flick. It’s a pointless bore, set to music and songs most memorable when they are the butt of “Seinfeld” jokes (“Master of the House”).

TWO MARXES

Watch the trailer . . .

* “Parental Guidance“: this extremely stupid, utterly cliched, unfunny “comedy” makes it official: Billy Crystal and Bette Midler are soooo over. This is the best they could do? Sadly, yes. Sorry, but dumb bathroom humor “jokes,” such as a kid calling his grandfather, “Fartie,” fall flat. Not funny.

The story: Marisa Tomei and Tom Everett Scott play pretentious, left-wing, New Age parents. When, at the last minute, Tomei gets a chance to go on a vacation with her husband, they reluctantly call her parents (Crystal and Midler) to babysit. Tomei doesn’t like them much or want to entrust them with her kids because Crystal and Midler are traditional, normal grandparents who don’t engage in the New Age silliness. That was the good part of this movie–showing how ridiculous the “never say no,” “no winners, no losers” and “no good, no bad” childcare philosophies of left-wingers are (but that wasn’t enough to save the movie or make it worth seeing). Crystal is aghast when, attending his grandson’s Little League baseball game, he learns that there are “no strike-outs” because kids are allowed to swing until they score a hit. And there are no scores either, as there are no “winners” and “losers.” He is not allowed to discipline his grandkids or criticize them, and is told, instead, to tell them to “think about your words.” Ridiculous, along with the kids’ ridiculous names, “Harper,” “Turner,” and “Barker.”

You can probably guess what happens, because this movie is all too predictable. Not worth 2 hours or ten bucks. Sorry. A great statement on the BS of today’s upper middle class American parents, just not a great movie. Not even remotely so.

86 Responses

You are invariably correct on movies, Debbie. Therefore, you have saved me more money. Thank you for throwing yourself on this grenade.

More and more, my wife and I spend our movie going money on watching the MST3K guys rip apart bad movie shorts and bad modern films on Rifftrax.com (I have NO financial interest in this whatsoever) Who else could make carpentry jokes or “how to make a Zombie” jokes on the 1960s classic “Night of the Living Dead” or pile drive Jesse Ventura in “Abraxas?” The films are never over the top by today’s standards, and the humor is adolescent, at worst.

But I am fed up with today’s Hollywood. The majority are anti-American anti-Semitic scumbags.

These are reviews — which is to say, opinions. I never take any critic’s word, be that reviewer on the Right or the Left. I just go see the movie.

As an aside, Debbie should brush up on her French history or maybe re-read the Victor Hugo classic novel on which the play and movie(s) are based. It’s set in France, all right, over a 17-year period, from the start of post-Napoleonic rule in 1815 through the Paris Uprising of 1832. Not exactly the time frame of the “French Revolution.”

S: It’s moronic to say that you will go see a far-left, racist, or anti-Israel movie b/c it’s my opinion and you’d rather play the fool and give them your money (thus, supporting their crap) than believe me that certain things and viewpoints are expressed by the movie. You think I make this stuff up? Perhaps you should dismiss all of us and watch the Leni Riefenstahl Hitler movies–ya know, just to go see it and not believe anyone about what’s in it. When I say something is boring, that’s my opinion, and you can disagree. When I write that Jamie Foxx says in the movie that it’s great that he gets to kill White people and get paid for it, that’s fact. Check the movie script.

I never read the Hugo book, so I can’t RE-read it. You know what they say about those who assume (as you just did). However, the movie notes at the beginning that it takes place later than that. Don’t fault me, fault the filmmakers who got it wrong. DS

Nothing like smart-aleck pedants who make trivial, meaningless ‘corrections’, such as the previously-unknown, and misnamed ‘seek’. Loosely construed, the 1815-1832 time period, is, indeed, the ‘time’ of the French revolution (and of its ill-fated impact). Revolution was in the air, and France was plagued, as ‘seek’ acknowledges by revolution after revolution, uprising after uprising until 1871, the year of the notorious French Commune. All these uprisings were praised by Marx and his communistic cohorts. Just as the era of the Renaissance covers more than a century, the era, or time of the French Revolution covers multiple decades.

Agreed. Hugo’s novel is way too long and was in need of severe editing and you can lose patience with reading at times but the story of human greatness is moving and is no better portrait of France at the beginning of the 19th Century than in “Les Mis.” Its considered his masterpiece and it does have an opera quality to it.

This is not where Hugo really excels. He is considered the greatest of French poets and his poems about his daughter Leopoldine are very touching – about parental love and loss and are his poems on nature and on God. Any one in France can tell you if you haven’t studied his poems by heart, you don’t how sublime Hugo can be. I should add I adore the novel but this film has all its drawacks and none of the moving power of people associate with it as an epic.

I agree about the book, sk, but I thought the movie looked fantastic. It is a “dark” story, not the “happy happy joy joy” ending of Rodgers and Hammerstein pap we had the other day, SoM. But I will say this, the “musical” is very operatic and anyone who is NOT an opera lover won’t “get” it artistically. This is why I don’t go to movies. Most movie goers and even more critics seem to think one has to agree with the opinion of the piece to appreciate it. NO, if you can’t think for yourself just cause you plunked down 10 bucks to Hollyweird, you shouldn’t go to movies. The book IS worth reading and I’ve read parts of it in the original French but I can’t say I “enjoyed” it. It’s a hard, story and a hard book. That’s why we read the “classics” to challenge our ideas and opinions. I don’t think it’s anything to brag about if one has multiple degrees and has never read one of the mainstays of literature.

FTR, I DO NOT think the Von Trapp story is pap, but I hated that handling of it. I HATED SoM and I cannot stand Julie Andrews, especially her voice.

Italkit on December 27, 2012 at 2:55 am

Italkit, your comment made me smile, reminding me of a moment, years ago, when I was on an airplane and the magazine I was reading had a two-page ad for the movie “Evita” starring Madonna. A 20-something girl was sitting next to me. She leaned over and asked if I saw the movie. I said no, I hadn’t seen it yet. She shook her head and said, “Don’t bother. There was only singing in it, no acting or words.” I looked at her and said, “You do know Evita is an opera, right?” She just sat there with her mouth open. I guess she didn’t know what an opera was. What an idiot.

I wonder how many young idiots will go to see “Les Mis” to see Russell Crowe, Hugh Jackman or Anne Hathaway, and then complain that there was only singing in it – no words…

DG in GA on December 27, 2012 at 3:49 pm

Dear Debbie: You never read the book. Did you ever see the Fredric March-Charles Laughton 1935 film of LES MISERABLES? It’s great.

I was kind of interested in Django…up until recently, that is, when Foxx referred to Obama as “our Lord and savior” to a cheering Soul Train Music Awards audience. I don’t think the late Don Cornelius would have approved. Debbie’s review insures that I will stay away.

As for “Parental Guidance”, I’m not that interested in seeing it, but I’m amused that Debbie pointed out the mindset of today’s yuppie parents and the stupid names now given to kids (i.e. – “Dakota”, “Fenster”, “Newton”, etc.).

Well, Debbie, at first I was going to see it, but when “Motherf_cker Jones” opened his “motherf_ckin” mouth about obama and killing white people. These are not jokes to me. Why do I have to overlook that? They believe conservatives will watch anything and are not worried about any ramifications from Jamie Fox’s big racist mouth. I know they can live without my money, but I can’t live with myself if I contributed one dime to that movie.

JRM, you read Les Mis in elementary school? That just shows how far the education system in the US has fallen. We got it High School. I’m probably about your age, maybe a couple years younger. Since we also read parts in French III, I can’t remember exactly.

And again, in all this trash, not one Christmas movie, not one movie that tries to promote the values upon which our country was founded, and based, for many years, at least through the 1920s, the era of World War II, and the 50s. Remember Going my Way? Nothing like that today, only trash. At least, based on the reviews, no vomiting.

This is not intended as a defense for Quentin Tarantino or “Django Unchained”, neither of which I will see.

“But there were also some good White people, abolitionists who worked for the freedom of slaves.”

With all due respect, abolitionists were few and far between in the Confederacy. Support for slavery in the Confederacy was near universal, even among those who didn’t have the money to own them. Also, white abolitionists willing to actually risk their own lives and take up arms against slave owners – as this movie depicts – were practically nonexistent … John Brown is the only one that I can think of. So depicting abolitionists in this movie, which was entirely about slaveowners in the Confederacy, would honestly have been out of context historically, and one only to address the sensitivities of people whose real issue is quite frankly the fact that a movie about slavery was made in the first place. Perhaps you can take issue with the fact that no good slaveowners were depicted in the film, but that requires the opinion that there was ever such a thing as a good slaveowner to begin with. As to the lack of good white characters … how many would have redeemed this movie? To those who object to the very subject matter – a movie about slavery – the truth is that no amount would have, so why bother? With those, slavery can only be discussed in the context of the Civil War that was ostensibly fought to end it (though truthfully Lincoln would have gladly allowed slavery to continue if it would have kept the southern states from seceding it) and the acts of abolitionists, and not on the institution itself.

Also, the idea that this is a “kill whitey” thing … that would have been true had the targets of the violence been random, indiscriminate white people (which by the way is exactly what happened during some actual slave revolts … read up on Nat Turner) but in this case, the targets were, well, bad guys who did very bad things. And not all the bad guys were white … consider Samuel Jackson’s character. So really, what separates killing bad guys in this movie from the bad guys in any other action-adventure shoot ’em up? So what rules are we operating under here … that killing bad guys is wrong if the good guys are black and the bad guys are white? Because we certainly know that there have been plenty of movies and TV shows where white protagonists blast away at black (as well Hispanic, Asian, Arab and Native American) bad guys with abandon, and yes the bad guys were generally evil and stupid. I don’t know if I can recall a single black/Hispanic/Asian gang member or Arab terrorist blasted away by Stallone/Arnold/Chuck Norris/Fred Dryer that was depicted as a tragic anti-hero with an appreciation for quantum physics and neo-classical art. And when I watched those movies and shows in the 1980s, I didn’t interpret them as pro-Jim Crow propaganda.

It is curious that the reviewer referenced Inglorious Basterds. That movie vs. this film = two ahistorical revenge movies where the good guys killed bad guys. 6 of one, half a dozen of another. Again, I personally have the position that there were good slaveowners. But the bad slaveowners were most certainly bad, and I don’t see the use in claiming that they were “better” than the Nazis and therefore any less deserving to be the subject of a revenge movie. (No, I am not comparing slavery to the Holocaust, so don’t go there. I was only saying that bad slaveowners were bad guys. Period.)

No, slavery is properly discussed in a much wider context than the Civil War. As you probably know, the issue of slavery dominated American politics in the first half of the 19th century, especially in the decades leading up to the Civil War.

Again, as you quite likely know, the issue of slavery was a key consideration governing the entry of new states into the Union during the early and mid-19th century. Many, many Northerners campaigned for as many new states as possible to enter the Union free from slavery, favoring an indirect means of getting rid of it. And there was considerable outrage in the North over the Dred Scott decision. And in the Colonial era, several Northern states abolished slavery.

And you are misusing the word ‘ahistorical’. Brush up on vocabulary usage. It is foolish to just look words up in a dictionary and apply them in your comments, because you are unable to grasp the nuances of their meanings using that method.

And you have to consider movies in their context. They are not just abstractions. This movie takes place in the context of calling everyone from the Tea Party, White Southerners, and White people in general, racists. And it cherry-picks incidents in our history.

The use of generalizations makes it difficult to respond, because you don’t say anything specific. Just vague, amorphous generalizations that are hard to pin down. Hard to refute, but no real assertions are being made because nothing specific is being said.

And actually, the 80s flicks by Norris, Bronson, et al, had a disproportionate number of white villains, many more than were warranted by actual crimes committed. Political correctness was already taking root.

Gerald, I decided to purposely NOT read your long post because it annoys me so very much that you would write such a long post on a dumb movie by an aging, hipster/dork doofus yet when you had a chance to really have a say about REAL racism (Donya “Niggers should not be allowed to get their license” Berry Panicchia & her racist tweet) you had NOTHING to say.

Think that says it all. Not very credible in my not-so humble opinion. #Fraud

Skunky, Geriatric seems to forget the Compromises of 1820 and 1850. Prior to that, the foreign slave trade had been abolished in 1808. Those were efforts by the Congresses of the time to limit the spread of slavery. Also, slavery had been banned for a very long time in most Northern states, hence the reaction to the Dred Scott Decision of 1857 by the U.S. Supreme Court. State laws banning slavery and the Compromises of 1820 and 1850 were nullified by that decision. It was a direct, though not the only one, reason for the subsequent Civil War. Any peaceful compromise or effort to gradually abolish slavery was obliterated by a decision that literally rendered local, state, and federal legislation that had as its purpose the limitation or elimination the institution of slavery void.

Sorry Skunky, but I had MAJOR end-of-year projects at work and did not have the time to chime in on the whole Donya “Niggers and guns” Pannichia incident. And I didn’t need to…you handled her very well! There was no need for me to jump in…

As far as “Django Unchanged”, it was interesting concept…a western set against the backdrop of slavery. The performances were great, but it was a little too over-the-top violent for me, especially in light of the recent spate of shootings we’ve experienced. However, my late father, who loved Gene Autry, John Wayne, Lee Van Cliff, and Clint Eastwood shoot-em-up westerns, probably would have loved this one too!

D. O'Nay on December 27, 2012 at 11:01 am

Today the websites are on fire commenting regarding the Spike lee dissing Tarantino’s DJango. Some postings are sooo funny!

The point of Debbie’s review of Tarantino’s “homage” to Obama is summed up by her in two short sentences:
” The “Get Whitey” ethos of this movie isn’t what we need more of. We need far less”

And that’s the point that completely eludes you.

At a time in this country when we’ve seen a black attorney general and the White House “break bread” with race hustlers and the black panthers,we don’t need Hollywood adding fuel to the fire.

I personally believe that this movie serves as a preview of coming attractions in this country.
It helps desensitize the population to more black-on-white crime.And let’s face it,for better or worse,people get their cues from movies in this day and age.

I don’t saw the whole movie, I saw just couple trailers, but your review is dreck (just like you claimed this movie is). This movie is not dreck and High Jackman is an excellent singer. Just for people, who never knew the Europe history, or read Europe classics it could sound bad. Your review is, what your absence of intelligence let you to wright. I hardly doubt you will recognise a good singing from bad, you probably don’t have ability to difference. And the story, which you don’t understand, because you didn’t know the French history, described so bad, that I didn’t know what to do, laugh or cry. I just ask you never post your review in any European sites, because you would be laughed of. This is the bad USA education in all glory. Sorry if I hurt you, but I have no choice. You represent yourself like some person, who can be movie critic. Maybe for Americans movies based on Americans script, your critic would be okay, but you shouldn’t put your criticism on the story you don’t understand and have no ability to judge.

What this tells me is that you are a functional illiterate. You also admit to having seen only film trailers. So, how would you know whether Debbie has been accurate or not.

“This is the bad USA education in all glory.”

Rina, a person who is as illiterate as you are should not be tossing a comment like that out. It merely invokes laughter from others.

Rina, as for the rest of your rant, the response is obvious.

You are in no position to order Debbie or anyone else to do anything, such as not posting a review here or eslewhere. As for your criticism of others not knowing history, that really comes as a laugh from the likes of you. Judging from what you have written here, I doubt that you could even read a Victor Hugo novel. It would be a miracle if you managed to get through a comic book from cover to cover.

Rina, it is best not to judge the intelligence of others when you obviously benefited so little from the education you received.

But it is interesting that the sharpest criticisms of Debbie seem to take place in the movie review posts. I guess some of these creeps are afraid to take her on regarding political issues, so they think they have a better chance by the more indirect method of attacking the movie reviews and letting their vitriol flow forth in that way.

I always find it humourous when peeps chuck-a-wobbly over DS’ movie reviews.

As a fan of movie reviewers since the days of “Siskel & Ebert” one picks the reviewer they like and sticks with them. I was always appreciative of Siskel’s reviews. He was my kinda movie guy! (I also loved James Veniere (a local critic who influenced my writing style) and “The Filthy Critic” who I read back in the 2000s…he was filthy but he knew a good movie!)

And unlike politics, it’s just opinions. I don’t get agro about people’s opinions on esoterica (But I also note if peeps have crap taste in movies. That’s important to me because I’m a movie snob and won’t bare many movies…especially bad ones!. To each their own (and I do enjoy what I love on my OWN!!).

But that being said, DS has been a fool-proof movie reviewer for a hard customer like me. Even if I like the films a tick more that she does her critique is right on.

I love “Taken” (would have never seen it if not for her review) and I didn’t listen to her review of “Tiny Furniture” and I STILL have anger over that movie to this day when I see the ugly Lena Dunham being heralded much like Michelle Antoinette Obama-Putin (IE…we all know they are beastly but many pretend they are better looking and more talented than they are). Oh, and was she EVER correct on “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy”. Tom Hardy or not that movie is just as she reviewed it!

Little Al, it does become annoying when the likes of that woman accuses others of being stupid and ignorant. It is rather like a streetwalker (wearing her professional attire) calling some random woman passing by a whore. It is a moment of delusion that would evoke laughter in a television sketch or comic strip.

I’m assuming Rina is Israeli by her name so I have to ask both Worry and sk, can you write Hebrew and express ideas as well as Rina does English? Yes there are serious mistakes but I understand what she’s saying.

WELL, now that you ask, Italkit, I’m sure Worry and I could easily surpass Rina in Hebrew. So far as I can tell, she used Google Translate.

However, I do not presume to lecture Israelis in Hebrew on their ignorance regarding a movie that I haven’t seen. Only a moron would do that. And the stereotype of the ignorant American as compared with the sophisticated Euro in play here? Only a subliterate ignoramus would buy into that.

Well, you know it it very typical of Israelis and Europeans to do so, sk even when they aren’t illiterate morons.

Say “hi’ to Whistler’s Mom for me. She was visiting NY when my mom took me to the Louvre specifically to see her. Mom wasn’t much of an art appreciator so, while she may not have thought so, I found many of the other works well worth the trip.

Italkit on December 27, 2012 at 11:17 am

Italkit, Whistler’s mommie is at the Orsay. But I’ve seen her before.

In truth, I planned on visiting the Orsay again today, after ten years or so, but the line was appalling even for those with museum passes. Looks like every dodo in Asia, Europe, and the Americas has decided to spend this New Year’s in Paris, where tourists take turns posing in front of art so that others can photograph them not looking at it.

skzion on December 27, 2012 at 5:28 pm

[Actually, Italkit, you must have visited the Louvre before there was a Musee d’Orsay, at which time W’s Mother was indeed there.)

skzion on December 27, 2012 at 5:46 pm

Italkit, I went over Rina’s remarks because she accused Debbie of being stupid and ignorant. If she had not gone into that territory for no reason whatsoever, I would not have even commented on her post.

Here is a good chunk of it:

“I hardly doubt you will recognise a good singing from bad, you probably don’t have ability to difference. And the story, which you don’t understand, because you didn’t know the French history, described so bad, that I didn’t know what to do, laugh or cry. I just ask you never post your review in any European sites, because you would be laughed of. This is the bad USA education in all glory.”

There is arrogance, pretension, condescension, as well as poor English in this little rant. We are not dealing with an off phrase or word that might have been a mistranslation. Rina is basically calling Debbie ignorant, dumb, and useless. I would not let such comments pass without a response whether the poster was literate or semi-literate. Rina did not even bother to give an example of where Debbie was incorrect before launching into her attack. It is fairly obvious that Rina simply used this thread to jump all over Debbie, and for no other reason.

If you find such an attack justified, please let us know. Also, a nickname often tells you little about the person who posts. We have had Muslims in here who have tried to impersonate Jews with nicknames, such as Schlomo.

If you wish to be the official welcomer for people like Rina, be my guest.

Worry, your next to last paragraph is what you should have said to begin with, not accusing her of being a Muslim or anything else. She made some good points and yes, her manner is fairly typical of Europeans and Israelis when “confronting” Americans on culture, particularly when said American is putting herself forward as an “expert.” Quite honestly, I’m appalled that Debbie, with all her degrees, never read the book. It should be required reading in any Lit. 101 course if not high school. For someone who rants, rightly about the dumbing down of America, she doesn’t even understand how her own education is lacking.

And, worry, if you stood by and politely listened to someone else’s opinion with which you didn’t agree, here in Israel, you’d be considered arrogant and ignorant.

Italkit on December 27, 2012 at 11:23 am

Italkit, we are not in Israel, and this blog is not an Israeli one. Ole Rina is in the wrong in multiple ways.

Just because Israelis have (so you claim) bought into vulgar and infantile anti-Americanism is no reason why we here should smile and be sympathetic. In addition, frivolous negative comments against a fellow Jew are forbidden, and you should not be encouraging them–and yes you are, by defending “Rina.”

skzion on December 27, 2012 at 5:37 pm

DS nailed review of Django. I paid $6 to see it because I needed the ammo to use against Jamie Foxx and the hypocrite Hollywood hoplophobes. Pulp Fiction is one of my all time favorite movies. I liked Reservoir Dogs too. But Django is crap. Mildly entertaining and funny in spots but typical liberal self all whites should be ashamed of themselves BS. Save your $ unless you need the intel because your going to spend 2013 attacking these mofos on your Blog.

Well, these movies all suck! But I do enjoy reading your movie reviews.

I will DEFINITELY not see “Django Unchained”. I hope the movie suffers and dies. And with Conservatives not wanting to see it and now that big-mouthed racist Spike Lee coming out against it, I hope it keeps many people away.

And however I hate QT personally, I really like his movies. A lot. I have always seen thru’ his D-Baggery but I have always appreciated what he can bring to the screen. He hosted a “Music Of “Django” on XM Satellite Radio’s “Little Steven’s Underground Garage” and I liked the music a lot. But I always do in his films. He doesn’t make the music, he just picks it. Big whoop.

I have NEVER understood the lemming-love mentality of frog-faced, bore Leonardo DiCaprio. He is NOTHING to write home about. Even in “Inception” he was the LEAST interesting thing. I LOVED “Inglorious Basterds” but it will be easy to skip this POS film. I’ll rent “Jackie Brown” instead!

Like you I have never seen “Les Miserables”. I love dark tales but I STILL have no desire to see it and with the casting of the Triumvirate Of Torture (R Crowe, H Jackman & big-eyed and big-mouthed Anne Hathaway) for me it will also be a breeze to skip. Yuck!

I love hearing that Russell Crowe can’t sing. That whacko even has a band (and I know the name but I won’t embarrass myself by typing it…but someday it will make a funny story…) and yet he can’t carry a tune in a musical! Now I know why his super-fans are all so mentally ill! Just like him!

And Billy Crystal. I remember him from “Soap”. But now he looks like an Idaho potato with a fuzzy wig (or merkin) slapped on top of his head. And the forced humour delivery? Yikes, isn’t that what Nickelodeon is for???

Your going after me for improperly using “ahistorical” in informal communication pretty much set the tone for the rest of your piece. Also, your claim that this movie – which is no more than an action western shoot ’em up – is somehow obligated to be a balanced depiction of events as if it was a biopic, historical film or serious movie – is incredible. It illustrates my very point, which is that “Django Unchained”, whatever its lack of merit as a film, is being subjected to a double standard simply because its very depiction of white characters as bad guys over their treatment of black characters is inherently offensive to you. As a result, there would have been no way to make this film – or any film like it – that would have satisfied either you or the reviewer.

good movie jamie fox deserves another oscar….what was portrayed on film only scratches the surface of the holocaust whites inflicted on blacks…including the founding fathers raping their slaves and excluding them and women from voting…thanx

Yes the Poor black folk sold by their own Brothers, and let us not forget the Black slave owners or the fact that some of them were better treated than the northern Workers.

How about the Blacks who fought for the Confederacy?
It is always the same the Poor underpriveleged Blacks who ere taken advantage of and cannot do anything for themselves.
Except collect multiple checks from multiple id’s and still complain it’s whiteys’ fault.

Blah Blah Blah.

Who was that Black man with Clinton who said they sold their own brother?

North Carolina and Louisiana had entire units of Black Confederate soldiers (i.e., North Carolina sharpshooters, First Louisiana Native Guard), and Black Confederate soldiers were among those killed (while valiantly carrying the Rebel flag) during Pickett’s Charge at the Battle of Gettysburg.

Black soldiers fought for the same reason White soldiers did.

Their homes were invaded by a foreign army, so what else could they do?

Did you know that the South had MANY Black slaveowners?

There were more of them in South Carolina than any other state.

Did you know the FIRST slaveowner in America was Black?

Are you familiar with the White slaves on the Carolina plantations?

My own personal family history records such an instance.

When researching a U.S. Census record in Kentucky, I personally encountered another such instance.

Robert Louis Stevenson’s novel, “KIDNAPPED”, was based on that practice of abducted Scottish orphans being sold into slavery on the Carolina plantations.

How many folks have ever heard of Admiral Sir William Sidney Smith and the SOCIETY OF THE KNIGHTS LIBERATOR OF THE WHITE SLAVES IN AFRICA?

Here is a URL where you can read some more details, and there are llinks to sources:

47 million poor folks in the u.s….almost all in single famly households…rent subsidies..food stamps..free medical…free cellphones…if we cut these folks benefits we would not be able to walk the steets at night….right now they only have to turn to crime for their nikes…blunts…and casino trips…lets not make things worse for ourselves

When Spike Lee calls for a boycott of a Jamie Fox movie, it’s got to suck. I remember when Roots came out, the violence against whites. It’s not something we need right now. Or for the next 50 years. Look how well the last three summers have been in Philly and Chicago and every where else. Yeah, lets stoke the unrest during a bad time. Any white person that goes to it and gets jumped on gets no sympathy from me. Why not dress up as Decrappios character when you go while you’re at it. Used to like some of Tarrantinos dreck, but now I really can’t stand the scum bag. He will truly have blood on his hands. How about all those actors with guns in their hands? Disturbing hypocrites on duty.

Then, the man who fired her, a former prisoner and lawbreaker (Hugh Jackman)–he was imprisoned for 17 years for stealing a piece of bread for his sister to eat–feels bad, so he gets her young daughter and raises her.

I’m old enough to remember the TV miniseries based on the Alex Haley book “Roots” which portrayed almost all the whites as stupid and/or bad people. I did not hear until recently about Alex Haley’s problems that arose after his success with “Roots.”

Your review of Django Unchained really seemed like a parody. It’s hard to believe that anyone would think, let alone write and publish, this racist drivel. It is you, not the movie, that is racist. The movie uses Tarantino’s over-the-top violence (which I admittedly am not the hugest fan of) in a way that was much more upsetting than in any other movie I’ve seen by him, because the violence inflicted upon slaves actually has some truth behind it. This movie is a redemption story that reveals the moral abomination that was slavery. You don’t have to like it, but don’t pretend that those whip marks were Tarantino’s fabrications. Your idea that Django demonizes all white people ever and internalizing it to say MY FAMILY didn’t do this is so obtuse. Who cares that you and your family weren’t perpetrators of slavery? How does that have anything to do with anything? Does that mean that slaveowners didn’t own black slaves and treat them in humiliating, dehumanizing, and often violent ways? No. I feel the need to actually answer my own rhetorical question because your powers of observation and analysis are clearly faulty and out of line. Sorry that this wasn’t a story following white abolitionists. Yes, they existed, but they were obviously a minority, and that’s not the point of the movie. Hiding the horrors of slavery is the norm, displaying it is what makes this movie special. And how could you possibly come away from this movie just with self-righteous anger and a horribly racist tirade? What does this have to do with Obama? How dare you refer to African-Americans as the “hip-hop, single-mother, welfare-addicted, drug-using segment of our society.” I understand that it’s hard, especially as a politically-minded person, to not insert one’s political ideas into all facets of society, but I refuse to accept that bigotry is a valid political stance.

Re “Django Unchained”: “Slave” is a relative term. Half the year we are all forced to work for the government (our taxes). Unions forced children to engage in prostitution and drug-dealing to keep from starving after getting the Government to ban children from working with their moms and dads. Most American slaves came to know Christianity, a loving household, and never knew the cannibalism, wars, hardships and inhumanity of their native Africa.

I had to choose between “Les Mis” and “Jack Reacher”, and picked the latter because of its shorter length and word-of-mouth from the barrista at the CBTL. Normally I’d avoid the crazy Scientologist but the guy has finally become a wonderful, fully-invested-in-the-role, leading man. The script is smart and filled with frequent, believable action sequences. It’s better than Liam Neeson’s “Taken”. A plus: Cruise no longer looks too young or acts too over-the-top, even in roles that are written to be over-the-top like this one.

Did you know “Les Miserables” was Ayn Rand’s favorite book? It was. Kind of puts any thoughts that Les Mis is liberal out of the “obviously” category, doesn’t it. Of course, we now know from interviews with her that Farrah Fawcett was Ayn Rand’s favorite actress and her pick to play the lead in a film version of either Atlas Shrugged or a remake of The Fountainhead.

In Jean Valjean we see the successful businessman who brings a whole city out of poverty and, out of a Christian desire to be a better person, creates hospitals and schools for the poor. The play shows that prosperity is driven by capitalist leaders.

It is God, not government, that redeems Valjean.

You will notice the film is proposing such things as universal education, due process of law, and property rights.

Another interesting fact of American racial history — but seldom discussed or taught in schools — is that some blacks volunteered to fight and kill Injuns in one or more of the Southwestern campaigns of the Civil War.

I’m amused that aside from the racial politics of the movie, it contains much of what Debbie complains is missing in modern movies- a clear-cut story about the virtuous oppressed overcoming the wantonly evil, a dedicated husband rescuing his wife; a movie where men are men, and beautiful women aren’t pretending to be men. And there’s some cool pyrotechnics to boot!

Debbie I don’t understand your take on Les Miz…are you saying musicals should only be happy through and through? No Carousel, No South Pacific, no Fiddler on the Roof? The plot is taken directly from the novel…19th century social fiction was often very hard on the characters. And the movie changes so much of the lyrics and cuts out so much of the music from the stage show that it’s hardly an actual adaptation. The stage version remains great.

Just because something is old doesn’t mean it’s good. Victor Hugo was a slavish devotee of the French Third Empire and Napoleon III. In his novel he badly exaggerated how badly off the ‘miserable’ were under the previous ruler Louis Phillipe. In Les Miserables he wallows in the worst sort of wretchedness to make people feel good about how good they had it (even though N III was just as imperious as any ruler France ever had). ‘Les Miserables’ was trashy propaganda from the very beginning.

Dear Idiotic Movie lady:
You have no place reviewing ART with your obvious political bias.
You obviously know NOTHING of the awesome theory of REVENGE Taratino so perfectly presents.
To cry antisemitism about the German man tells me you have not seen the greatest Nazi revenge movie ever, A little Tarantino film called Inglorious Basterds.
You sound ignorant and paranoid with your review. If you cannot truly appreciate film without interjecting your own political agenda, you should gracefully bow out.

Wonderful. Like expected, only a single paragraph of the entire Django review wasn’t about politics, and that was a elementary school-level plot summary. Other than that, every single sentence was about politics and virtually all of it was way off base. Please Debbie Schlussel, for the integrity of movie criticism, stop pretending you’re a real critic. You have no problem being a pundit, so just be that full time. Even Armond White is embarrassed.

Wonderful. Like expected, only a single paragraph of the entire Django review wasn’t about politics, and that was a elementary school-level plot summary. Other than that, every single sentence was about politics and virtually all of it was way off base. Please Debbie Schlussel, for the integrity of movie criticism, stop pretending you’re a real critic. You have no problem being a pundit, so just be that full time. Even Armond White is embarrassed.

I thought Django Unchained was the best movie I watched during 2012. Grant it, 2012 was a pretty weak year at the box office, with the exception of a couple movies, this movie will grab multiple oscars and might just net Q his first best director Oscar.

I did not see Django Unchained, but my daughter did. She does not view the entertainment industry as much as pushing an agenda (because she is 20). Her criticism has more to do with the cinematic problems so evident in the movie. She found it to be indulgently gory, poorly edited and laughably one-dimensional.
I don’t think it is a coincidence the movie takes place in Mississippi, a state that did not ratify the 13th Amendment until the 1990s (in fact the last state to do so).

So Schlussel loved Inglourious Basterds but hated this. Interesting. Apparently only her own revenge fantasy films are allowed to be made and lauded but no others are. Slavery was a horrible and vile institution. Yes there were still good Southerners but there were still decent people within the German army who weren’t Nazis as well. But these films aren’t about being fair. Also, Schlussel asks why is there a need for this film now? Well why was there a need for Inglourious Basterds when it came out? Germany is no long Nazi Germany and is long removed from those atrocities. Yet Schlussel still took immense joy in seeing Nazis brutally killed. I would’ve understood if you didn’t like Django for the extreme violence, length, or just was not a fan of Tarantino writing. But to dislike it for hypocritical reasons while trying to disguise it with those other reasons just reveals Schlussels inability to move past her biases.